Justice Democrats is an American progressive political action committee[3][4] founded on January 23, 2017, by Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk, Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks, and former leadership from the 2016 Bernie Sanders presidential campaign. Uygur and Kulinski are no longer affiliated with the group. Alexandra Rojas became executive director of the organization in May 2018. The organization formed as a result of the 2016 United States presidential election and has a stated goal of reforming the Democratic Party by running "a unified campaign to replace every corporate-backed member of Congress" and rebuild the Democratic Party from "scratch" starting in the 2018 congressional midterm elections.[5][6]

Justice Democrats describes its views as being held by most Americans, but deemed "politically impossible" by the current political establishment because of systemic political corruption.[7][8] Members of the Justice Democrats comment that as all campaigns need donations and that candidates who hold policies viewed as unfavorable by corporate interests and wealthy individuals will be denied funding by corporations. Therefore the system actually ends up forcing politicians to change their policies to suit the current business environment.[9][10]

In the 2018 elections, 26 of the 79 candidates endorsed by Justice Democrats won their respective primary elections. Seven of these candidates won in the general election: Raúl Grijalva, Ro Khanna, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Pramila Jayapal. Districts won ranged from D+13 to D+34 on the Cook PVI, meaning solid Democrat. No swing districts were won, though Kara Eastman and Ammar Campa-Najjar came close in their respective races.

In some cases it seems we're witnessing a reverse Ouroboros. Instead of the head eating the tail, the tail is eating the head while the democratic socialist Justice Democrats attempt to implode the Democratic Party by selling the American people a feel good brand of Justice For All. While the masses debate the right and wrong of AOC politics Justice Democrats further their agendas with unified messaging across the pac through puppet masters like Saikat Chakrabarti and media darlings like AOC.

Taken at face value, the Justice Democrats' platform seems reasonable and in some cases desirable. After all, who in their right mind doesn't want equality, fairness, and an end to corruption and bigotry?

Here is their platform:

Transform Our Economy

We need a bold economic vision that will both reclaim lost capital and put money back in the pockets of hard-working Americans, and create millions of new jobs for those who have been left out of the workforce.

GREEN NEW DEAL

Scientists are sounding the alarm on climate change. Communities are fighting back. It’s time to drastically and immediately move away from fossil fuels, develop the technologies of the future, and create prosperity for all of us -- not just those on top. The Green New Deal is a mass mobilization to dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources. The Green New Deal will also provide all members of our society, across all regions and all communities, the opportunity, training and education to be a full and equal participant in the transition, including through a job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one and ensure a ‘just transition’ for all workers, low-income communities, communities of color, indigenous communities, rural and urban communities and the front-line communities most affected by climate change, pollution and other environmental harm including by ensuring that local implementation of the transition is led from the community level and by prioritizing solutions that end the harms faced by front-line communities from climate change and environmental pollution.

SECURE A LIVING WAGE AND TIE IT TO INFLATION

This is about justice and basic human decency. If you work hard and you work full time you shouldn’t live in poverty. Furthermore, we support strong unions and collective bargaining.

ENACT A FEDERAL JOBS GUARANTEE

The idea behind a federal jobs guarantee is that anyone who wants to work and contribute but can’t find a way to do that in the economy can do that. A federal jobs guarantee program would establish a floor for wages and benefits for the nation’s workforce. This program would provide a baseline minimum wage of $15 an hour and guarantee for public workers a basic benefits package, including healthcare and childcare. By investing in our own workforce, we can lift thousands of American families out of poverty and get people to work doing the work that needs to be done.

REBUILD OUR CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE

Our infrastructure gets a grade of D from the Society of Civil Engineers. The government should invest trillions in rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, schools, levees, airports, etc. There’s no reason why we can’t have the world’s #1 infrastructure.

BLOCK BAD TRADE DEALS

Americans have lost millions of decent paying jobs due to unfair trade deals. It’s time to end the race to the bottom and renegotiate these rigged deals that only benefit elites. We should not sacrifice our sovereignty. The only people who are allowed to make laws for the United States should be the American people, not multinational corporations.

END TAX DODGING AND LOOPHOLES

Corporations dodge $450 billion a year in taxes by using offshore tax havens. We should end this injustice, as well as chain the capital gains tax to the income tax, increase the estate tax, and implement the Buffet Rule so that no millionaire CEO pays less in taxes than his or her secretary. It’s time for a tax system that benefits the middle class and the poor, and makes the top 1% and multinational corporations pay their fair share.

END UNNECESSARY WARS AND NATION BUILDING

The United States maintains 800 military bases worldwide at a cost of $100 billion a year. This is money that can be spent at home creating jobs, rebuilding infrastructure, and investing in the future of the people. The disastrous war in Iraq cost trillions, the war in Afghanistan is going on 17 years in with no end in sight, and we’re currently bombing 7 different countries. We spend more on our military than the next 8 countries combined. It’s time to end the wars and the perverse monetary incentive structure that makes politicians flippant about sending young men and women to die. Unilateral U.S. military force should only be used as a last resort to defend the nation. The current budget could be cut drastically if we used our department of defense for what it was intended — defending us, instead of waging interventionist wars.

Protect Our Rights

The growing disparities in income and wealth among our nation’s people have long-term impacts on our population — for wealth accumulation, debt reduction, and educational attainment.

MEDICARE FOR ALL

The United States should catch up to every other modern nation and implement a single payer, Medicare for All system. It’s time to end the destruction of American health care by rapacious, price gouging, for-profit, private health insurance middlemen.

FREE PUBLIC COLLEGES AND TRADE SCHOOLS

Educating the citizenry of a nation pays dividends in the long run, with the economy getting back much more than is initially put in. Crushing student debt for higher education would no longer burden young men and women trying to improve their lives through hard work. We should strive to have the best education system in the world.

DEFEND AND EXPAND SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, AND MEDICAID

Republicans have been trying to privatize and cut earned benefit programs for decades. Corporate Democrats have been willing to go along with them under the guise of a ‘grand bargain’ and ‘reform’. We pledge to staunchly oppose this. Social Security reduced the elderly poverty rate from 35% to 10%. 3.4 million Americans would immediately fall into poverty without Medicaid. Gutting these vital programs is not an option.

ENSURE PAID VACATION TIME, SICK TIME, FAMILY LEAVE, CHILDCARE

The United States is one of just three countries in the world that doesn’t offer paid maternity leave, the others being Oman and Papua New Guinea. We are the only industrialized nation that doesn’t offer paid vacation time. This should be changed immediately.

FIGHT FOR RACIAL JUSTICE

Racism and xenophobia have always been part of our country's history. Since our nation's founding, the wealthy and the powerful have always used divide-and-conquer tactics to make working people fight each other instead of the people on top. African Americans and Latinos in particular, and people of color generally, have been targets in our nation’s continued assault against their rights, liberties, and humanity. As did generations before us, we will continue to advocate and push for justice, equity, and equality in all manner and forms, and will sponsor and vote on legislation to secure the same. We support a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate the generational harms caused by slavery and Jim Crow and propose remedies.

PROTECT WOMEN’S RIGHTS

We support the Paycheck Fairness Act and we support repealing the Hyde Amendment. We oppose Republican cuts to Planned Parenthood and women’s health clinics all across the country. In 2016 alone, 60 TRAP laws targeting abortion were passed in 19 states. We will vigorously oppose all efforts to dismantle reproductive rights.

COMBAT HOMELESSNESS

More than 600,000 Americans are homeless on any given night, including over 57,000 veterans. Studies show the cost of leaving a homeless person on the streets is $30,000 while the cost of housing them is just $10,000. Addressing this crisis is both the moral and fiscally responsible thing to do.

POLICE REFORM

For-profit policing and for-profit prisons should be abolished. Police training should be retooled to emphasize de-escalation tactics, and body cameras should be mandatory on all officers. Furthermore, community oversight boards should be created and broken windows policing should be eliminated. Stop & frisk&#8202;—&#8202;which disproportionately targets African Americans and Latinos 87% of the time&#8202;—&#8202;has a 97% failure rate. On top of being discriminatory and ineffective, it’s also unconstitutional and should be ended. Special prosecutors must also be appointed to hold police accountable. We should invest more in jobs and education, less in jails and incarceration.

ENACT COMMON-SENSE GUN REGULATION

92% of Americans want expanded background checks, 54% want a ban on assault weapons, and 54% want a ban on high capacity magazines. We agree with the majority of the American people and support these measures. Over 30,000 Americans die every year from gun violence, including over 10,000 homicides. The time to act is now to address this public health crisis.

VOTING RIGHTS

Since 2013, with the U.S. Supreme Court’s disastrous Shelby County v. Holder decision, states across the country have been actively working to reverse the hard-fought protections for voting rights secured during the Civil Rights Movement. Fair and equal access to the ballot is essential to our ability to uphold and protect our nation’s democracy. We believe every American citizen is entitled to vote, and we will work to secure voting rights, challenge ultra-partisan gerrymandering, and put an end to affronts to our democratic representation.

Defend Our Democracy

We cannot afford to continue partisan jockeying on these issues; there is too much at stake. Americans must be provided a better chance to succeed in the face of rising income inequality and continued machinations by corporate giants.

ABOLISH ICE

ICE was created in 2003 as a reaction to 9/11. Since then, it has turned into a state-funded terror group that regularly violates basic human rights. We don't need a special enforcement agency for undocumented immigrants. We can rely on our existing criminal justice agency to arrest those who have committed a crime, just like we did before 2003.

END CORRUPTION

Super PACs should be banned, private donations to politicians and campaigns should be banned, and a clean public financing system should be implemented to end the takeover of our government by corporations and billionaires. Americans deserve free and fair elections&#8202;—&#8202;free from the corruption of big money donors. The Supreme Court has effectively legalized bribery. We need public financing of our elections.

REFORM OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

America imprisons more people than any other nation in the world. With 4.4% of the world’s population, America incarcerates 22% of the world’s prisoners (716 per 100,000). Even as the national crime rate remains on a steady decline, incarceration rates continue to climb. On top of that, our criminal justice system currently targets Black and Brown people leading to higher arrest rates and longer sentences. That needs to end.

We won’t give an inch in our opposition to Trump’s outrageous proposals. Ideas like a ‘total and complete’ shutdown of Muslim immigration and deporting all undocumented immigrants are anathema to America. We will fight for comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship. America is a proud nation of immigrants.

STOP SELLING ARMS TO HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS

We recently gave Saudi Arabia billions in weapons and watched the civilian death toll in their vicious bombing campaign in Yemen tick up. We continue sending Egypt arms as they violently crack down on peaceful protesters. Israel received $38 billion in aid and promptly announced new settlements. The first step to peace is not enabling nations who regularly violate international law.

END THE FAILED WAR ON DRUGS

The racist War on Drugs has torn families apart all across our country. Politicians in both parties created a system of mass incarceration while divesting resources from the most vulnerable communities. Legalizing marijuana is a racial and economic justice issue. Black Americans are four times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana possession despite similar usage rates. Billions of taxpayer dollars are spent to uphold a racist system.

We must legalize marijuana and ensure that the records of those who were incarcerated for marijuana-related charges are expunged. As we legalize marijuana, we must also follow the models set in Massachusetts and Oakland that make sure that profits, investment, and business opportunities are going toward communities unfairly targeted by the racist war on drugs.

ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY

Humans are fallible, we’ll never get the right answer 100% of the time. 4% of the people on death row are not guilty of a crime and have been wrongly convicted. A system that puts innocent people to death is indefensible and should be reformed. We want justice for the American people but killing innocent people on death row is the exact opposite.

DEMOCRACY REFORM

73% of congressional districts in America are deemed "safely Republican or safely Democrat" and do not have competitive general elections. We support bold reforms to provide voters an equal say in our democracy. This includes efforts to expand the House of Representatives and the Fair Representation Act to create multi-member districts and ranked-choice voting. We also support the movement to provide statehood for Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico in order to bring balance to the increasingly skewed Senate. These efforts are in line with movements for racial and economic justice in our country. We also support public financing of elections and the removal of the corrupting influence of corporate and big money in our democracy.

OPPOSE BIGOTRY

We must speak out against racism, sexism, xenophobia, and all forms of bigotry. Non-discrimination protections that currently apply to race, religion, and gender should be expanded to include the LGBTQ community.

DEFEND NET NEUTRALITY

These days, our reliance on technology has become second-nature, and the Internet has become a great enabler of industry, connectivity, and commerce. For all the wonders the internet provides, its benefits are fragile in that at any moment, large corporations seeking to pad their bottom lines and deliver outsized returns to their shareholders can, at any moment, hinder our access to the Internet - a platform for freedom of expression and medium for improving our lives.

For more than a decade, the Internet has served as a great equalizer, and has provided an opportunity and platform for small businesses and voices (who may not otherwise have a platform to compete in the market alongside big corporations and other powerful entities) to meet new audiences and expand their impact. Widespread access to the internet and net neutrality have been essential for providing Americans a better chance to succeed in the face of rising income inequality and continued machinations by corporate giants.

We believe in upholding net neutrality as a condition of Internet Freedom, and will work with our colleagues in Congress and around the country to ensure that Congress once and for all adopts a legislative solution to uphold the open internet. We cannot afford to continue partisan jockeying on this issue. The rules have changed consistently over the past ten years based on who occupies the White House and which party in Congress dominates in the realm of legislative control. There is too much at stake and on the line to stop now. Internet Freedom is a must, and we will do what it takes to ensure that all people have the opportunity to access the internet freely, openly, and affordably.

In Democratic Socialism, there are not “haves” or “have nots” because there is a sense of community ownership in all things. Private production is used for the public good. At the same time, individuals within the society are able to elect their government officials freely, without fear of political reprisal. That means the differences in wealth and culture are reduced because everyone is working toward a common good.

2. It gives everyone an opportunity to pursue success.

In a truly capitalistic environment, only those with means and opportunity can pursue options like good healthcare coverage or a college education. In the U.S., there is already a form of Democratic Socialism in place with the public schools offered in the K-12 grade range. This form of governing simply extends the concepts which are already working in a democratic society and applies them to other components of it. Each person has an opportunity to pursue their own definition of success.

3. It eliminates the threat of price fixing.

In Democratic Socialism, the government either controls, owns, or monitors every organization that provides goods and services. Instead of using free market demands to raise prices or form mergers or monopolies, the society is able to govern pricing and regulations to allow access to anyone who may need those items. There is no structure available that allows suppliers to alter pricing simply because there is a high demand for what they have.

4. It creates income equality within society.

In the United States right now, the inequality gap has been growing for more than two generations. In 1980, only 50% of children earned more than their parents. In 1940, 92% of children were able to earn more than their parents. The Top 1% of income earners in the U.S. bring in more than 20% of all income. In 1970, the bottom 50% of earners brought in more than 20% of all income. Adults in the top 1% earn 81 times more than adults in the bottom 50%, on average. Under Democratic Socialism structures, these gaps wouldn’t fully disappear. They would, however, become greatly reduced.

5. It reduces the threat of economic cycles.

During the Great Recession years of 2007-2009, many families around the world struggled to make ends meet. Jobs were lost. People were forced to find underemployment opportunities just to pay their bills. Since then, wages have exploded for the upper income tier, growing as much as 230%. For the bottom tier of income earners, some individuals haven’t seen a pay raise since 2007. Democratic Socialism reduces the threat of these economic cycles, making it easier for households to take care of their basic needs while still having income access to pursue opportunities.

6. It creates an economy that is more efficient.

Within the structures of Democratic Socialism, there is no longer a push to sell unneeded goods or services to consumers. That means less money is spent on marketing, allowing for more to be spent on production, innovation, or wage growth. People still receive what they need for comfort and daily living without the constant brand messaging demanding to be heard.

7. It offers more room for value judgments.

Products can be offered in a society based on Democratic Socialism that are based on value judgments instead of profit judgments. Even if production creates a loss, the government can subsidize production to make needed items available to everyone. In a structure based on capitalism, goods and services are based on profits first and value second.

List of the Cons of Democratic Socialism

1. It cedes more control over basic needs to the government.

Even though officials may still be elected, Democratic Socialism is still on the socialism spectrum. That means the government is given more control over how lives can be lived. There may be added benefits to social access, but that requires money, which means higher tax rates. Then there are fewer options available because the government is in control of the competition. At the end of the day, in its extreme form, the government would be telling everyone what they can do, where they can work, and what they can purchase.

2. It could cause a net financial loss instead of gains for families.

Even Bernie Sanders admits that higher taxes are required in such a system, with a 25% tax rate proposed for the median income earner in the United States under his plan. In the Sanders plan, the top tax rate would still be under 40%. That means a greater tax burden, relative to available income, is given to the middle- and low-income earners instead of the higher income earners.

3. It would limit the influence of unions, civilian oversight committees, and similar institutions.

Democratic Socialism would cede the rights of workers to the government through employment. If the government decides that having a union is not in their best interest, then they can get rid of it. Public employees have already experienced this in government structures that are closer to capitalism. That means there is a greater potential for unsafe work places, lower wages, and less overall incentive to work if all the physical needs of an individual are automatically met by the government.

4. It can reduce innovation.

There may be an advantage in Democratic Socialism in that people with specific skills or talents are placed into jobs that directly benefit from that experience. At the same time, however, production within a socialism-style government structures tends to focus on domestic needs instead of new opportunities. That limits innovation because there is little, if any, competition with the government to develop new ideas. Over time, that means the society can lag behind others that incentivize innovation.

5. It can create more bureaucracy.

The government will want to determine who is eligible to receive specific benefits. Applicants must fill out paperwork to prove their eligibility. Ongoing renewals must be processed. The goal of Democratic Socialism may be to streamline society and equalize access to services, but more bureaucracy is created in doing so. That means it could take much more time to make services available to those who need them.

6. It creates more government spending.

For an economy to grow, there must be a balance between domestic and foreign trade. As innovation declines and manufacturing grows stagnant, fewer international opportunities develop. That means the government may be forced to import more items, creating trade deficits with their neighbors. Without innovation, maintenance and repairs overages become common as equipment ages. In time, the government spends more than it would if it had simply invested capital into existing systems to upgrade them.

7. It can create a lack of societal motivation.

There will always be people within any society that do not participate in the workforce. In the United States right now, about one-third of all people who are of a working age are choosing not to join the workforce. Under a system of Democratic Socialism, those figures could increase even further. If there is no reward for producing more than someone else, yet both individuals have their basic needs met, the individual working is more likely to give up than the individual not working choosing to join the workforce.

8. It cannot prevent a corruptible government.

Human beings are fallible creatures. We are prone to mistakes. We are also capable of doing abhorrent things to one another in certain circumstances. Under the structures of socialism, no matter where it happens to be on the spectrum, there are fewer checks and balances in place to limit the effects of corruption. New leaders can be elected by the people, but not immediately. Hierarchies tend to emerge under this structure, with leaders working to shore up power where they can.

These Democratic Socialism pros and cons are an overview of the subject only. This structure is not Communism, which many claim, nor is it the “next evolution of capitalism.” It is somewhere in the middle, a proposed compromise by those who want more people to experience success. Basic needs are met, but with fewer incentives.

As I've gotten older, I've taken a more moderate approach to politics because things like social security, healthcare, injustice and inequality mean more to me now than they did forty years ago wth less life experience and less time to consider and refute much of the dogma spoon-fed since birth. So considering the Pros & Cons why wouldn't every free thinking American welcome this push toward Utopia?

Because it doesn't work. Idealist do have the right ideas but are never able to formulate workable solutions. The solutions they do come up with invariably end up corrupted or coopted. Bigger government is never the answer in a truly free society. It's a slippery slope to the reduction of freedom and loss of rights. When humans are involved corruption and desire for power will blossom unchecked without a series of checks and balances controlled by the people.

In its most simplistic from, the slippery slope we face can be summed up like this :

1. Seduce the populace into accepting the government as the arbitrator of all problems; government from cradle-to-grave2. Begin delivering on those services to make the citizens dependent3. Take away the citizens' guns4. Increase taxes on all services while destroying any free market alternative services5. Blame the chosen scapegoat for the inability to meet demand for services6. Have the centralized national police force round up any dissidents

Hell, I even understand the attraction of Democratic Socialism. I think we all realize the system is broken on many levels. I think most of us would agree there needs to be reform across many issues, that hatred and racism need to be addressed, that inequality due to age, race, gender or sexual preference is a blight on society. Many of us might agree that corporate greed is rampant and that corporations don't pay their fair share in taxes. These (and others) are all valid issues. But the answer isn't giving up control or allowing the erosion of our rights. And that is what I believe The Justice Democrats and social democracy would eventually lead to if left unchecked.

Answers lie in staying informed, keeping dialogs open, and attempting to come up with real solutions instead of hardline approaches. Because like it or not, we are all in this together.

The reason new congressmen and women like Raúl Grijalva, Ro Khanna, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Pramila Jayapal are having success and gaining traction is because they are striking the right emotional cords. It's even possible many of them believe what they are preaching, but make no mistake, this is a coordinated offensive that is marketing a brand of pablum to a largely politically uneducated and uninvolved populace, and they will be extremely active and likely effective in upcoming regional and national elections.

It's up to each of us to stay informed and vote our conscience based on informed decision making. I'm pretty sure Trump was a backlash to the status quo, and I'm damn sure The Justice Democrats are a backlash to Trump. Instead of the whipsaw approach that is tearing this country apart, perhaps it's time to take a balanced approach, beginning with attempting to understand both sides of the coin, and admitting and understanding that unchecked capitalism can lead to a harshly unequal class society and rampant poverty just like unchecked socialism can lead to fascism, conformity and a police state. In my view, we're on thin ice as a free society. Fortunately for me, I'll unlikely be here when the ice breaks, but that doesn't mean I don't care what happens. I want my family to be safe and free for generations.

JMHO

If you're interested in learning more about socialism or brushing up on it as an economic system, here's a fairly comprehensive primer. Worth the read, IMO:

That's a fair post. I am not a Justice democrat, but I do like much of what they have to say. I'm not a social democrat, but I also like much of what they have to say. That being said, I think some GOPers have reasonable view points on a variety of subjects but far to often get turned off by the actions/rhetoric/intentions of the far right that seems to have seized control of the GOP entirely.

That's why I view Social Democrats and other similar to them as a much needed counterbalance and the most desirable alternative to today's government. We need to focus on the things that truly make us great. A financially strong and highly educated middle class that every American can be a part of just by being willing to put in the effort. You know, the American dream.

The only way we get back to that or for many communities achieve it in the first place is by first leveling the playing field and taking care of our people from the bottom up, not the top down.

Change is something that can only be taken in bites. A few of those ideas are pretty popular among voters overall.

The idea that a person who works 40 hours a week should be able to have a roof over their head and be able to afford to buy groceries at the same time isn't some left wing conspiracy.

The idea that all Americans should have health care and that we're being ripped off by big pharma, health insurance and the cost of procedures is something anyone can see. This has been pointed out so many times on this board with hard proof it isn't funny.

So I think those are two issues that could easily pass as reasonable to the average American voter.

That's giving people a couple of bites. You stand a good chance to win the presidential election that way. I also think you could propose some environmental changes, but not some crazy green new deal all at once that way.

What the Dems can't seem to come to grips with is it's much easier for a nation to ease into things instead of trying to cram a lot of change down people's throats at one time.

The "I want it all and I want it now" ideas some of them have will be their own undoing.

_________________________"You know what? You've got to get (Hue Jackson) players. And you know what? I'll come straight out with it. The guys who were here before, that system, they didn't get real players.'' - John Dorsey

Which policies are you referring to? I don't believe I labeled any policies left or right. I simply posted The Justice Democrats' platform, if that's what you're referring to. But call them whatever you like.

If you'd like to discuss issues on the platform and ways of reform, I'd like to hear your ideas. I didn't post this to be inflammatory. More as a concern. And a way to possibly encourage dialog. I see all the back and forth between libs & cons, and frankly I don't see any point to it because nothing gets accomplished other than "my guy did this your guy did that, you're this you're that" gotcha bull$#!%. Totally useless. Instead, I've laid out my concerns over extreme socialism and identified areas of common concern so we might enter a dialog. You're a smart guy, I'm hoping you'll participate.

Yet you find it somehow reasonable to call it 'extreme socialism' like that label isn't going to immediately be a choking point for further conversation in this politically charge alt-right atmosphere.

If we are going to have reasonable discourse we need to drop the labels of each others ideas and just listen to them for the purpose of reasonable exchange of ideas. I've listened to all the reasons the right think we need Trumps wall. I find it mostly ridiculous and based in propagandized fear. However parts of it are very credible. But I don't get to talk about those parts because I'm a lefty socialist scumbag within seconds of posting my views.

That's a fair post. I am not a Justice democrat, but I do like much of what they have to say. I'm not a social democrat, but I also like much of what they have to say. That being said, I think some GOPers have reasonable view points on a variety of subjects but far to often get turned off by the actions/rhetoric/intentions of the far right that seems to have seized control of the GOP entirely.

That's why I view Social Democrats and other similar to them as a much needed counterbalance and the most desirable alternative to today's government. We need to focus on the things that truly make us great. A financially strong and highly educated middle class that every American can be a part of just by being willing to put in the effort. You know, the American dream.

The only way we get back to that or for many communities achieve it in the first place is by first leveling the playing field and taking care of our people from the bottom up, not the top down.

Fair point about the extreme right. I happened to think extremism or fanaticism on any side is dangerous, so I question that an extremist left is an effective counterbalance to an extreme right. Both are dangerous in my view but your point is taken.

Your desire for a financially strong, high educated middle-class is a very healthy natural desire. I guess the question is, how do we get there? I don't know about you, but I went through public school, hated it, and didn't really start realizing the value of education until college, which I paid for with the GI Bill after my service. My take away for me was, I had to take advantage of the advantages the country offered in order to get my education. I didn't expect someone else to pay for it, but I did take advantage of government subsidy in reciprocity for my six years of service. That was my particular set of circumstances. I'm sure it's much different today. For one thing, it's much harder to get into a good school. Certainly much more costly. And the GI Bill, if it still exists, is a much watered down version.

Part of the problem, I think, is the extreme profit mongering happening in education. If the government were to offer grants, or free education, it would basically mean we, the tax payer, would be paying schools for their exorbitant tuition fees. Perhaps a cap on tuition would work. The problem might become apathetic professors if salaries are curtailed, but education as we know it now is just another form of price gouging.

Your term "Leveling the playing field and taking care of our people from the bottom up, not the top down," seems broad and ambiguous. How do you propose we do this? We do know the welfare state doesn't work for all. Perhaps for some, but now for all. So how do we address the financial inequality? (If that is what you're referring to.)

Yet you find it somehow reasonable to call it 'extreme socialism' like that label isn't going to immediately be a choking point for further conversation in this politically charge alt-right atmosphere.

I was referring to extreme socialism as an outcome, not as a movement. As I hope I've made clear, I view extremism in any form dangerous.

Yeah, Pit, your conclusions are astute and reasonable. Like I said, there are many issues there that are hard to argue with. It's coming to terms with how we address them that is the challenge. Open dialog is a beginning.

I've advocated for debate over rhetoric for a long time. Discussion over labels. It has happened on here but it's a rarity. I sincerely wish you success in your endeavor.

_________________________"You know what? You've got to get (Hue Jackson) players. And you know what? I'll come straight out with it. The guys who were here before, that system, they didn't get real players.'' - John Dorsey

you labeled? the way this post was created, i thought you just copied and paste the entire thing from 4 sources. i didn't say you labeled anything, as i have no idea which part was the platform, and which part was your own posting.

to answer the question, rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure, tax loopholes, protecting rights, to an extend the healthcare and SS, reforming the criminal justice system, and defending net neutrality are all things i've heard republicans offer up as far as the policies go.

and thats just my decade worth of paying attention to politics. i dont know if there's even more that republicans offered up before then.

also:

Quote:

Democrats seem to be making a hard push to the left through the emergence of The Justice Democrats Pac.

im assuming you atleast wrote this yourself. this implies that you view these policies as leftist policies. please clarify.

_________________________
"I lived and died a proud American. We are citizens of the world's greatest republic, a nation of ideals, not blood and soil."

I think you're trying to make a point here, I'm just not clear on what it is. Help me out.

Re: the platform issues, I copied them from The Justice Democrats website so everyone was on the same page. I do view The Justice Democrats as extreme left, or social democrats. The platform issues themselves should be taken on a case by case basis. As I stated before, who in their right mind doesn't want equality, fairness, and an end to corruption and bigotry?

Yet you find it somehow reasonable to call it 'extreme socialism' like that label isn't going to immediately be a choking point for further conversation in this politically charge alt-right atmosphere.

I was referring to extreme socialism as an outcome, not as a movement. As I hope I've made clear, I view extremism in any form dangerous.

It wasn't but now it is. But we obviously disagree on what constitutes extremism at least on the left.

Yet you find it somehow reasonable to call it 'extreme socialism' like that label isn't going to immediately be a choking point for further conversation in this politically charge alt-right atmosphere.

I was referring to extreme socialism as an outcome, not as a movement. As I hope I've made clear, I view extremism in any form dangerous.

It wasn't but now it is. But we obviously disagree on what constitutes extremism at least on the left.

George Carlin once said about driving (Paraphrashing) " You ever notice how anyone who drives slower than you is a jerk and anyone who drives faster than you an maniac"

I believe a lot people have this line of thinking when it comes to extremism.

I'm really not a supporter of most any socialist policies. Most of these ideas take anything that I find constructive to the extreme that is so far left it's a non starter for me.

Let me just take a look at "income equality" for instance. To me that's some pie in the sky theory that has no merit.

I do believe there should be a bottom at which members of our society should not be below as I somewhat touched on in my previous post. I think anyone who works a 40 hour work week should be able to afford to pay their rent, buy groceries and have transportation back and forth to work. I know in the area I currently live that is a very hard thing for many to do in the Nashville area.

Hospitality has become a huge industry here in Nashville and the cost of housing is and has been skyrocketing here. As such they're having a very hard time filling many restaurant and entry level hospitality jobs. Minimum wage in Tennessee is still set at $7.25 an hour. Certainly most of these jobs start out above that but not nearly enough to cover the basics.

To me this is a moderate view of things. It certainly isn't the desire to make everyone equal or to suggest that an entry level, low skill job should make a person middle class, but it should at least provide a level of pay to allow someone to live in the area in which they work or close proximity to it.

The other was healthcare. To me it's a basic human right and we should be able to find a solution that has a high quality of care at the most reasonable cost. I promote the free market system and capitalism but just as with every system of government, every system needs checks and balances. It's been proven that the free market system can't accomplish reaching the goals that are best for our society in terms of healthcare.

That's about as radical left as i get.

Too far for extreme Republicans and not nearly far enough for progressive Democrats.

_________________________"You know what? You've got to get (Hue Jackson) players. And you know what? I'll come straight out with it. The guys who were here before, that system, they didn't get real players.'' - John Dorsey

The Wiki quote, The Justice Democrats Platform, the Pros & Cons of Democratic Socialism, and the slippery slope summation are pasted with links. I wrote everything else.

And for the third time, who in their right mind doesn't want equality, fairness, and an end to corruption and bigotry?

Again, I'm not labeling left or right issues, they're the platform of the pac. Though issues like the New Green Deal, Free Education & Healthcare (which sound very good, and under the right circumstances I might be able to support), and Federal Jobs Guarantees are decidedly leftwing.

As far as most of the other issues are concerned, they all sound really nice. How do you implement and enforce them them without a monstrous, multi-tentacled, unaffordable government? That would be my question here. How do we achieve all these great things without eventually relinquishing control to a police state?

For example reforming the criminal justice system is an interesting topic. I'm sure we both agree its a mess. So what's wrong with it? Overcrowding? Frivolous drug convictions? Privatized Prisons that thrive on the overcrowding and frivolous drug convictions? What do you see as the main issues?

Benefits of the privatization include lower costs to the state, while the downside is the conflict of interest created by no need to rehabilitate because the more prisoners the more money they make.

Ironically, privatization gained foothold in the 80's at the height of the drug wars which are directly linked to the CIA and the drugs for arms deals. A perfect example of government manipulation with the most disastrous results. So now we expect them to walk it all back and make it all good again through government oversight and legislation.

What's your take on guaranteed paid vacations, sick leave & paternity leave? I know some companies have moved to a 35 hour work week to avoid paying healthcare and other benefits by labeling these employees part time. Who's right here, the screwed over employee or the company that can't afford to keep its doors open with full time employees. Left says employed deserve a guaranteed minimum wage with benefits and vacation. Right says tell us what to d and we'll go out of business and there will be no jobs. How do you find the middle?

Fair point about the extreme right. I happened to think extremism or fanaticism on any side is dangerous, so I question that an extremist left is an effective counterbalance to an extreme right. Both are dangerous in my view but your point is taken.

Your desire for a financially strong, high educated middle-class is a very healthy natural desire. I guess the question is, how do we get there? I don't know about you, but I went through public school, hated it, and didn't really start realizing the value of education until college, which I paid for with the GI Bill after my service. My take away for me was, I had to take advantage of the advantages the country offered in order to get my education. I didn't expect someone else to pay for it, but I did take advantage of government subsidy in reciprocity for my six years of service. That was my particular set of circumstances. I'm sure it's much different today. For one thing, it's much harder to get into a good school. Certainly much more costly. And the GI Bill, if it still exists, is a much watered down version.

Part of the problem, I think, is the extreme profit mongering happening in education. If the government were to offer grants, or free education, it would basically mean we, the tax payer, would be paying schools for their exorbitant tuition fees. Perhaps a cap on tuition would work. The problem might become apathetic professors if salaries are curtailed, but education as we know it now is just another form of price gouging.

I think an extremist left looks more like a ditatorial communistic socialism. IMHO socialism is too broad a term used to describe many very different forms of governance. Democratic socialism is much more of a democratic capitalist government that uses socistic policies to provide/guarantee access to certain services or limited goods, that we all as humans require to survive and thrive in a modern economic landscape. We obviously all need food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and education to function in our society. Sometimes we can not cover the cost or provide these things for ourselves, more often that not due to no fault of our own. This is where we should use policy to level the playing field and make sure that everyone has these available to them regardless of their ability to pay. A brilliant kid from a dirt poor family with crappy credit can't get the best education or even student loans sometimes. Why would we punish ourselves as a society and not make sure that every student can get a top level education if they want one. We have far too many frat boys from well to do families running our country. They party their way through school and get the world handed to them, while brilliant kids from poor families get stuck in dead end jobs instead of being in a position to innovate and contribute on a higher level.

Worker displacement is a huge concern. Who can afford to retrain and educate themselves for a new career every 5-10 years in our current system? As automation becomes our new reality and human labor shifts to human innovation as tomorrow's human capital, how do we keep up without losing generations in the fallout?

This is why some are discussing a guaranteed basic income to keep people from losing everything or being bled dry while trying to keep up.

The benefit of a well educated flexible workforce that is highly innovative will outweigh any other change we can make for jobs IMHO. I don't see that as extremist.

We already agree that healthcare for all is needed. We just disagree on how to get there. My position is to cut out the greed of the middle men and leave healthcare to the doctors and patients. Medicare works and should be expanded or improved and expanded for all. It should also cover 100% of costs upfront for non-elective procedures or medical concerns.

Shifting to a prevention first healthcare approach will greatly benefit America too.

Again, I don't see this as extreme. Unless you are confusing progressive for extreme as opposed to moderate or conservative.

Originally Posted By: CalDawg

Your term "Leveling the playing field and taking care of our people from the bottom up, not the top down," seems broad and ambiguous. How do you propose we do this? We do know the welfare state doesn't work for all. Perhaps for some, but now for all. So how do we address the financial inequality? (If that is what you're referring to.)

Tax breaks for the rich don't work by trickling down. Lifting people up does work. Not welfare, just handing somebody the bare minimum to survive and telling them to pick themselves up by their bootstraps. I'm talking about lifting people up by making sure we all have incomes that provide us with enough to live dignified lives. We do that with a social contract that say we will help you get educated and become productive, you will work and contribute you fair share so we can do the same for others. We will help you through the tough times during health crisis, disabilities, and old age... you will work and contribute so we can do that for others too.

With an education system that focuses on greater innovation and productivity instead of cranking out factory worker drones we can reclaim the top spot for modern business innovation and production.

Our education system with college degrees and job requirements requiring those degrees is more harmful than good. Tech has showed that streamlined job certification programs that teach what is needed to be good at what you do is the better system. The basic, intermediate, and advanced levels of STEM as well as the ARTS, Physical Fitness and Health, Modern Home Economics (basic Adulting 101), Government/Ethics/PoliSci, and other general studies should be well funded by the government and provided k-12 as well as community college style continuing adult education in every town in America. This will foster a renaissance man style workforce that will be highly innovative and prosperous. We could do all of this now for the cost of an average high school education and college degree with regulation of education and restructuring the education industry to address these needs.

That's my idea of the type of thinking required to level the playing field. Obviously this is rough and I will get blasted by the right who never want anything to change, but this is what we need today for tomorrow.

I'm really not a supporter of most any socialist policies. Most of these ideas take anything that I find constructive to the extreme that is so far left it's a non starter for me.

Let me just take a look at "income equality" for instance. To me that's some pie in the sky theory that has no merit.

I do believe there should be a bottom at which members of our society should not be below as I somewhat touched on in my previous post. I think anyone who works a 40 hour work week should be able to afford to pay their rent, buy groceries and have transportation back and forth to work. I know in the area I currently live that is a very hard thing for many to do in the Nashville area.

Hospitality has become a huge industry here in Nashville and the cost of housing is and has been skyrocketing here. As such they're having a very hard time filling many restaurant and entry level hospitality jobs. Minimum wage in Tennessee is still set at $7.25 an hour. Certainly most of these jobs start out above that but not nearly enough to cover the basics.

To me this is a moderate view of things. It certainly isn't the desire to make everyone equal or to suggest that an entry level, low skill job should make a person middle class, but it should at least provide a level of pay to allow someone to live in the area in which they work or close proximity to it.

The other was healthcare. To me it's a basic human right and we should be able to find a solution that has a high quality of care at the most reasonable cost. I promote the free market system and capitalism but just as with every system of government, every system needs checks and balances. It's been proven that the free market system can't accomplish reaching the goals that are best for our society in terms of healthcare.

That's about as radical left as i get.

Too far for extreme Republicans and not nearly far enough for progressive Democrats.

Income inequality has little to do with rather a person is middle class or not. Nobody is saying an entry level job should make you rich, they're say it should afford you the dignity to not be impoverished and need welfare to survive. Even the left wants people to apply themselves and be rewarded for greater efforts. But allowing those stuck in low income jobs to struggle for life is a no starter in this debate for the left. And the vast wealth distribution of CEOs making 1000 times more than the average employee must end. During America's heyday of the 50s-60s the rate for CEOs was about 10 times as much as the average employee. We have to get back to a fair system that allows those toward or on the bottom to rise. So it's more about economic mobility/stability than anything else.

you said a whole lot there, so ill try and break down privatization. ok, first, the mentality surrounding "privatization" of....well, anything, is a big part of why half the country doesnt see eye to eye with the other half.

half the country, more or less, thinks the free market is the answer to everything. half the country more or less, thinks government is the answer to everything.

Pit will smile, because the correct answer is that typically both is needed for optimal sustainability. i for one believe the idea that progressive solutions yield conservative results.

you pretty much nailed the issue with privatization with regards to the prison system. sure, the state saves money, but thats about the only benefit. society loves to NOT mention the fact that judges run elections too, and they are often bought off by the people who run the prison systems, or any other private forms of criminal justice. so the state saves money, but the judge is giving out harsher sentencing, causing more people to enter the prison system, and for a longer period.

at least with the state controlling the prison system, there's atleast the HOPE of judges giving out lesser sentences, in part to save money for the state. with privatization, that hope is eliminated.

but the mentality surrounding privatization is a huge problem. way too many people in this country think that privatization = freedom.

thats not true. example? less government regulations/oversights leads to more income inequality. the government giving up control of certain aspects of life might sound good to the people who think we're still fighting the British in 1776, but then you're only giving up control of the people to the control of the few.

don't believe me? then anyone should be able to easily explain why corporations are freely dropping hundreds of millions of dollars every election season. explain why lobbying is such a major issue in our country.

we're 1 of 2 countries in the entire world that allows companies to advertise prescription drugs:

and yet half the country considers that 'freedom'. which, btw, is a big problem as to why our healthcare cost so much, despite our rankings in healthcare being pretty much p1ss poor. (that word isnt bad, refs. dont ban me).

also, people want to get closer to pure capitalism. anybody who's ever played monopoly should know how epically dumb that would be.

there's 4 spectrums of systems. capitalism, socialism, communism, and fascism. all 4 of those can, has, and will lead to 1 ruler controlling everything in its purest form. there's a reason why countries like Russia, China, and the US are basically oligarch states. the few control society over the masses. inching any closer to capitalism will only make that worse.

its my opinion that we're already too close to the pure form of capitalism to begin with, and need to be moved back to the balance of capitalism/socialism.

so most of those far left/progressive policies is something i support, simply because moving left will actually move us closer to the center.

Edited by Swish (03/25/1905:48 PM)

_________________________
"I lived and died a proud American. We are citizens of the world's greatest republic, a nation of ideals, not blood and soil."

ColdDawg & Swish, I appreciate the thought and time you've given to your responses as well as the reasonableness in how you presented your positions. That means a lot and gives me a lot to consider. In kind, I'd like to give my response the time and thought you deserve. unfortunately I can't get to it tonight, but I will get back with you tomorrow. Thanks again!

I think an extremist left looks more like a ditatorial communistic socialism.

I would tend to agree with this. That's why I describe it as a slippery slope. It's my view that once you've turned control of your lives and freedoms over to the government, you don't get them back. The tendencies of any control system is to strengthen its control in ever increasing ways until power is shifted completely from citizen hands. And I think this is the sticking point for many. We each have to weigh the risk of relinquishing control, permanently, against the value of basic needs for a minor percentage of the population.

I know numbers differ. For example the number of those living below the poverty level decreased in 2018 from 14.8% to 12.3%, yet other numbers that include those living near the poverty level puts the percentage at around a third. While these number don't seem ideal you have to consider who makes up those numbers. For example, women, minorities, and the elderly make up a good portion of these numbers. Addressing the inequalities in pay for women & minorities would seem to be a step in the right direction, as well as increasing social security benefits. These are steps that could be taken that may be more palatable to the other two thirds of the population that would foot the bill for say some type of broad scope government guaranteed income.

The numbers also don't separate out the upwardly mobile, those people who move from poverty to livable wages, like working students, ambitious or promotable single parents, etc., or those who might generationally improve their standards of living as might be the case for 1st generation immigrants versus second generation, or those who work under the table with cash transactions, pay no taxes and receive state benefits.

Quote:

This is where we should use policy to level the playing field and make sure that everyone has these available to them regardless of their ability to pay.

There are systems in place like welfare, the food stamp program, and unemployment insurance that do offset some of the issues you're referring to, and decrease the poverty numbers when taken into account. The US system is fairly efficient, but falls short in effectiveness. This might be something else that could be addressed. It has been shown that effective welfare in places like Europe and the Netherlands poverty is decreased by as much as 70%. For those with a solid work ethic, their chances of escaping poverty increase. For others, those suffering from mental health issues, the drug addicted, or those who willingly take advantage of the system, they are the disenfranchised portion of the population a successful society must care for. No one wants to increase welfare costs, but it is something that needs consideration, IMO.

Quote:

A brilliant kid from a dirt poor family with crappy credit can't get the best education or even student loans sometimes. Why would we punish ourselves as a society and not make sure that every student can get a top level education if they want one. We have far too many frat boys from well to do families running our country. They party their way through school and get the world handed to them, while brilliant kids from poor families get stuck in dead end jobs instead of being in a position to innovate and contribute on a higher level.

I'm sorry, this comes across as hyperbole. Perhaps it's something you've experienced, or is a pet peeve based on your world view, but I've seen no numbers to back up this claim. Does it happen? Maybe, but do brilliant poor kids also find ways to shine, get good educations, and become successful? Absolutely.

In general, I believe many hard working, dedicated, smart people from all walks of life make up the fabric of our society. Broad generalizations don't do much to further the dialog.

You seem to be intimating you want to take from the rich and give to the poor. That's a non-starter in a free capitalistic society. There are pros and cons to affirmative action programs, but telling a wealthy kid he can't go to college because we have to make room for a poor one is unlikely. We've seen the lengths people will go to assure their children's success when money is no issue. While we may not like that life seems easier when wealth is involved because it's not us reaping the benefits, we still live in a meritocracy with the opportunities for upward mobility. Being a meritocracy is an important fundamental that helps make the country great, IMO.

Quote:

Worker displacement is a huge concern. Who can afford to retrain and educate themselves for a new career every 5-10 years in our current system? As automation becomes our new reality and human labor shifts to human innovation as tomorrow's human capital, how do we keep up without losing generations in the fallout?

This is why some are discussing a guaranteed basic income to keep people from losing everything or being bled dry while trying to keep up.

I don't know that the numbers back you up here. If I understand them correctly, about 1% of the population was displaced in 2018, of those 66% were reemployed and 50% were reemployed at higher salaries. Again, I would refer to the social programs that are already in existence. Not saying they are perfect, but they are there for this reason. I don't agree that there should be a guaranteed basic income. While it may seem advantageous, the resulting taxation for payout and the administration to run the program would be grossly prohibitive, in my view.

Quote:

The benefit of a well educated flexible workforce that is highly innovative will outweigh any other change we can make for jobs IMHO. I don't see that as extremist.

I agree a well educated flexible workforce is important. I also agree education needs to be more affordable though I'm not sure state run schools are the answer but state sponsor tuition may be. Sky rocketing tuition is deplorable, the smallest of schools are expanding their campuses at an extreme rate simply because they have to do something with all the money they're making. There's something inherently wrong with that picture. The shift toward online education bares this out. People are opting for alternative ways to gain education, and there is a return to skill positions like carpentry, plumbing, welding, mechanics, etc. Also, as you pointed out, certification programs are effective, and are also gaining traction as well as companies like Coursera and EdX with their MOOC training programs.

I think we can both agree scandal and profiteering within the education industry is something that needs to be addressed. But society is adapting to alternative forms of education, and innovative entrepreneurs are working to help address some of the issues. We may see a complete paradigm shift in education within the next 10 to 20 years.

Quote:

We already agree that healthcare for all is needed. We just disagree on how to get there. My position is to cut out the greed of the middle men and leave healthcare to the doctors and patients. Medicare works and should be expanded or improved and expanded for all. It should also cover 100% of costs upfront for non-elective procedures or medical concerns.

Shifting to a prevention first healthcare approach will greatly benefit America too.

How do you propose these changes?

Quote:

Tax breaks for the rich don't work by trickling down. Lifting people up does work. Not welfare, just handing somebody the bare minimum to survive and telling them to pick themselves up by their bootstraps. I'm talking about lifting people up by making sure we all have incomes that provide us with enough to live dignified lives. We do that with a social contract that say we will help you get educated and become productive, you will work and contribute you fair share so we can do the same for others. We will help you through the tough times during health crisis, disabilities, and old age... you will work and contribute so we can do that for others too.

I think language like this scares the crap out of many American, and is seen as so far left as to be considered communistic. Giving people basic necessities to lift them up then telling them that they will work and contribute to the greater good sounds either pie in the sky or like life in a police state. I think it's this type of rhetoric that can quickly get people to tune out any good ideas that may follow.

Quote:

And we do need to go green, the sooner the better.

I believe the movement is on, we're seeing much more solar, wind, and electric power in use today than even a decade ago. The challenge is finding ways to wean the world as a whole off of fossil fuels. It's a difficult, complicated process that will take time. I'm not sure how much legislation can help other than imposing restrictions and time limits for change over when new technologies become available. But then you have to police and enforce which is expensive and complicated. As consciousness turns away from fossil fuels, the market should determine how quickly the change happens.

half the country, more or less, thinks the free market is the answer to everything. half the country more or less, thinks government is the answer to everything.

Pit will smile, because the correct answer is that typically both is needed for optimal sustainability. i for one believe the idea that progressive solutions yield conservative results.

This is an interesting jumping off point. I would divide it differently and say that half the country sits somewhere between left and right of the middle, and 25% sit far left and 25% far right. I think it is that middle 50 percent where the push-pull comes from; people who basically want the right thing but can't necessarily agree on how to go about it mainly because of party affiliation. I wonder if a 3rd party called based on moderation would get any traction, call it the Moderate Party. I think it might. But we're hung on the cross of the two party system which is barely any choice at all.

Quote:

but the mentality surrounding privatization is a huge problem. way too many people in this country think that privatization = freedom.

thats not true. example? less government regulations/oversights leads to more income inequality. the government giving up control of certain aspects of life might sound good to the people who think we're still fighting the British in 1776, but then you're only giving up control of the people to the control of the few.

don't believe me? then anyone should be able to easily explain why corporations are freely dropping hundreds of millions of dollars every election season. explain why lobbying is such a major issue in our country.

Reform within the justice system, to me, means removing profit incentives. Every time anyone enters a court room you must be prepared to dig deep into your wallet. Priorities have become grossly skewed to the point of disaster. There are fewer incentives to serve justice and more and more to generate revenue. That is a huge problem few people realize. Consequently, whether they realize why or not, people have lost faith in the system as a whole. I don't know all the answers, but removing profit form the equation would be a start. Ditto healthcare. Ditto education.

I happen to agree deregulation isn't always a good thing, food quality, arts, parks, air quality, finance, education, healthcare and politics have all suffered due to lack of oversight.

I also happen to believe we live in an oligarchic police state that few people are willing to talk about. The first thing I advocate is for corporations to pay their fair share in taxes. The other issue is ridiculous CEO and executive salaries. I know that sounds very left of me, but it is the consumer who ultimately pays because nothing happens without margins remaining stable or growing.

Quote:

its my opinion that we're already too close to the pure form of capitalism to begin with, and need to be moved back to the balance of capitalism/socialism.

so most of those far left/progressive policies is something i support, simply because moving left will actually move us closer to the center.

I understand the thinking here, but I would tend to disagree. I think moving more toward the middle, on both sides, would move us more toward the middle. I think that's where we need to get to because if you use my form of division 25-50-25, you would be faced with trying to convince 75% of the country to take that step to the far left, whereas if you start with the idea that most people want the right thing, you're already there. Now all you have to do is set aside the two party dogma and rhetoric, set specific goals, and get to work.

What's your take on guaranteed paid vacations, sick leave & paternity leave? I know some companies have moved to a 35 hour work week to avoid paying healthcare and other benefits by labeling these employees part time. Who's right here, the screwed over employee or the company that can't afford to keep its doors open with full time employees. Left says employed deserve a guaranteed minimum wage with benefits and vacation. Right says tell us what to d and we'll go out of business and there will be no jobs. How do you find the middle?

The only issues I would see are the vacation and maternity leave. According to my way of thinking everyone would have national healthcare.

And I believe national healthcare would help workers at solving those other issues. At the current time you take a huge risk when changing jobs or starting your own business because you lose your current benefits. I mean, I wonder how many people would start a small business if they didn't lose their healthcare as a result?

The one place I'm far more liberal than anywhere else is in regards to working Americans. Yet at the same time allowances have to be made for small businesses. We have to have an environment where small businesses can grow while protecting American workers at the same time. As of now American workers are having their rights eaten away on a daily basis with right to work states.

I would propose a very similar guideline as employers now face with healthcare. If you have, as a suggestion, less than 50 employees, you do not have to provide vacation pay or paid leave to your employees. Once you get above 50 employees, you do. Another suggestion I saw that seems like a logical solution to paid leave is a fund that you and your employer both pay into on a weekly basis with matching funds. You each put in five dollars a week for a ten dollar a week fund. When you need family leave, you draw money from that fund.

I'm not an economist nor do I have a solution to all of these issues. But I think there is some middle ground that can be found if each side were more concerned with an actual solution to our problems than continuing a polarized divide.

_________________________"You know what? You've got to get (Hue Jackson) players. And you know what? I'll come straight out with it. The guys who were here before, that system, they didn't get real players.'' - John Dorsey

I'm not an economist nor do I have a solution to all of these issues. But I think there is some middle ground that can be found if each side were more concerned with an actual solution to our problems than continuing a polarized divide.

In a new interview, venture capitalist Alan Patricof called on lawmakers to address income inequality but said he opposes the “Robin Hood mentality” behind tax proposals put forth by New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

“Taxing the rich to give to the poor, a Robin Hood mentality, may not be exactly the right way,” says Patricof, a major Democratic donor.

Ocasio-Cortez proposed a marginal tax rate of 70% on income over $10 million; while Warren, a 2020 presidential candidate, put forward a 2% wealth tax on households that exceed $50 million.

Patricof made the comments to Editor-in-Chief Andy Serwer in a conversation that aired on Yahoo Finance in an episode of “Influencers with Andy Serwer,” a weekly interview series with leaders in business, politics, and entertainment.

In 1967, Patricof was an early investor in New York Magazine. He followed in the 1980s and ‘90s with larger investments in Apple and AOL, before either company was a household name. Meanwhile, he founded global private equity firm Apax Partners, which to date has raised over $50 billion in funds.

Patricof returned to venture capital in 2006 when he founded Greycroft, which has specialized in digital media companies with stakes in companies such as Huffington Post and Venmo. He donated thousands to support Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy in 2016 and Democratic Congressional candidates in 2018.

‘A fair tax system’

He listed income inequality among the top issues Democrats need to address, alongside health care and infrastructure.

“We just can't have people buying $200 million co-ops, and other people not being able to pay their rent,” Patricof says.

He called for “a fair tax system,” suggesting lawmakers close the carried interest loophole, a move that would prevent stakeholders in an investment fund from receiving advantageous tax rates on income generated by their investments.

Patricof has long backed the carried interest proposal, one he made in a New York Times op-ed in 2016, “even though it hurts my pocketbook,” he says. “There are a lot of people who have a conscience who are concerned.”

He lamented a divide in the Democratic party between centrists and the progressives.

“It's a shame that there's been a bifurcation,” he says. “I found myself the other day in an interview saying I'm not a socialist, I'm a capitalist.”

“We’re all getting put into boxes,” he adds.

Ocasio-Cortez’s tax proposal is supported by 45% of voters, while 32% of voters oppose it, according to a Morning Consult poll that surveyed 1,993 voters last month. Warren’s proposal outperformed the Ocasio-Cortez proposal in the same poll. Sixty-one percent of voters favored the Warren proposal, including 50% of Republicans.